Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add two pieces of value the annotations lack: the required scope 'contacts:read' and the fact that the payload includes per-row results, but it says nothing about volume, pagination, or how long results are retained for a finished job.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the scope constraint. No filler, no restating of the tool name or title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is rightly omitted, and annotations cover safety. The gap is that per-row results for a large import could be an unbounded payload, and the description neither mentions pagination, truncation, nor when to prefer the list or jobs_get endpoints.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single id parameter is documented in the schema as an 'imp_…' job id, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no extra meaning about the id or its provenance, which matches the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific resource (an import job) and specific content (status plus per-row results), which is more precise than a generic 'get'. It does not, however, contrast itself with the nearby contact_imports_list or contact_imports_create, so the agent must infer that this one takes a job id.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to call this rather than contact_imports_list or jobs_get, and no note that it is the follow-up call after contact_imports_create. The only contextual cue is the 'contacts:read' scope, which describes authorization rather than selection guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.